Michigan ban on domestic partner benefits blocked

Jun. 28, 2013

Written by

Detroit Free Press Staff Writer

In yet another boost for gay rights, a federal judge in Michigan has blocked the state from enforcing a 2011 law that bans public employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples, concluding the law is discriminatory toward the gay community.

“The historical background and legislative history of the Act demonstrate that it was motivated by animus against gay men and lesbians,” U.S. District Judge David Lawson wrote in his 51-page ruling. “… Looking to the history and text of Public Act 297, it is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose — indeed, perhaps the sole purpose — of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees.”

Lawson issued an injunction barring Michigan from enforcing the 2011 law two days after the U.S. Supreme Court held that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits — a ruling that Lawson cited in his opinion, noting the high court offered him guidance in reaching his conclusion.

Lawson’s ruling was part of a civil lawsuit filed by five same-sex couples who sued the state over a 2011 law that prohibits various public employers, including cities and counties, from offering health benefits to same-sex couples. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law on behalf of the plaintiffs, who either lost their health insurance or stood to lose it as a result of the law.

“We're breathing a sigh of relief right now,” Peter Ways, an Ann Arbor teacher whose partner would have lost his benefits, said in a statement. “This law was clearly meant to target families like ours and to make us feel as though we didn't count.”

State officials in Michigan have defended the law, arguing it has a legal right to try to save money and “an interest in protecting marriage.” At a hearing before Lawson last year, state attorney Margaret Nelson argued that Michigan law does not recognize same-sex marriage.

“The plaintiffs assume that they are similarly situated to married employees,” Nelson said at the hearing, adding they “do not have a legally recognized relationship under Michigan law.”

(Page 2 of 2)

Same-sex couples are viewed under Michigan law more like single people, friends or roommates, who also will lose their benefits as a result of the law change, according to Nelson.

In his ruling, Lawson cited statements made by two Republican sponsors of the bill, concluding their comments bolstered the plaintiffs’ arguments that the law unfairly hurt same-sex couples.

Lawson cited this statement by the lead sponsor of the bill, Rep. David Agema: “[t]he people of this state, the Attorney General and the Michigan Supreme Court have all decided in recent years that marriage is between one man and one woman and to extend health benefits to unions that do not fall into that category is disrespectful to the people. For a state organization such as the (Michigan Civil Service Commission) to blithely ignore these mandates is reprehensible.”

Lawson also cited this comment from Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, a cosponsor of the bill who also criticized the MCCC, stating: “[i]t is an absolute abomination to hear a state agency has the gall to make such a costly and polarizing political move while people and their government are pinching pennies just to make ends meet … this [is a] clearly political move that shifts people’s hard earned dollars into the pockets of same-sex partners.”

In response to Lawson’s ruling today, Lund said, “I’m sure there are a lot of questions about the ruling. I was just following the will of the people with their previous vote,” Lund said, referring to the 2004 constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in Michigan.

Given the ruling earlier in the week by the U.S. Supreme Court on benefits for same sex partners, Lund said the ruling is one that needs to be carefully considered.

“I always like to talk to people in the legal community to make sure it’s a sound ruling and not a political ruling,” he said.

For Kary L. Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan, Lawson’s ruling was a huge relief.

“This law served no purpose to the state of Michigan other than to needlessly discriminate against hard-working families,” Moss stated. “It's hard to encourage talented people and their families to work for public employers in Michigan when they're denied the ability to take care of each other.”

Lawson’s ruling was a partial victory for the plaintiffs. It dismissed their due process claims for lack of evidence, but allowed their equal protection claim to proceed, concluding that the plaintiffs have a good chance at trial of proving the law violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

A final ruling on the law’s constitutionality has not yet been made. And public employers are still not required to offer same-sex couples benefits under the ruling.